timujin:She does, indeed, make that the sexiest presidential poster of all time.

But what's with the 5% number? Why would that "destroy the two party system"?

If a party hit's a certain percentage of the popular vote, that party is automatically included in the next election cycle and cannot be shut out of the national debates. That didn't happen until Ross Perot 'cost' Bush 1 and Bob Dole the presidency.

But what's with the 5% number? Why would that "destroy the two party system"?

If a party hit's a certain percentage of the popular vote, that party is automatically included in the next election cycle and cannot be shut out of the national debates. That didn't happen until Ross Perot 'cost' Bush 1 and Bob Dole the presidency.

But what's with the 5% number? Why would that "destroy the two party system"?

If a party hit's a certain percentage of the popular vote, that party is automatically included in the next election cycle and cannot be shut out of the national debates. That didn't happen until Ross Perot 'cost' Bush 1 and Bob Dole the presidency.

That. It wouldn't "destroy the two party system" (nothing short of complete electoral reform will pull that off), but it'd lead to more voices in the mainstream, and that's a good thing.

/I was considering voting third-party this year, since I'm in California and there's no way Obama isn't winning my state, and that way my vote at least could help someone else out//After my arguments with third-party supporters here on Fark, though, I'm ready to vote Obama just to spite them

Gonz:timujin: She does, indeed, make that the sexiest presidential poster of all time.

But what's with the 5% number? Why would that "destroy the two party system"?

Federal funding in 2016, I believe.

Yeah--if 5% of the vote turns out for an independent--they are entitled to federal funding in the next election. While tempting--it keeps us freaking log jammed--it takes the vote away from the candidate who has a chance, but that candidate is a Republicrat. Or Demoblican. Or whatever.

If I was Republican--I'd have no issue handing off the next four years for a real conservative candidate, though.

But what's with the 5% number? Why would that "destroy the two party system"?

If a party hit's a certain percentage of the popular vote, that party is automatically included in the next election cycle and cannot be shut out of the national debates. That didn't happen until Ross Perot 'cost' Bush 1 and Bob Dole the presidency.

Nope- the debates are administered by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is a joint partnership between the R's and D's. If a 3rd party was polling at 75%, the Big 2 parties aren't forced to let that candidate debate.

They most likely would, and they usually use 15% as the cutoff, but they don't have to.

plewis:This poster smacks of GOP "Dirty Tricks." The GOP have way more to fear from the libertarians than the Democrats do.

The current form of the GOP does, yes. Libertarians of late though are basically Republicans who don't want to invade Iran, are okay with gay marriage and want to legalize marijuana. There are also a lot of Ron Paul fans who joined up with the LP so they could vote for Gary Johnson. Eventually they'll filter back into the GOP because they'll become sick of their candidates not winning anything.

/Thinks 3rd parties do need to run national candidates to increase their visibility, but//They need to put primary focus on state and local races.

The Presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of $20,000,000 plus COLA (over 1974). For 2012, the grant is approximately $91,241,400 for each major party nominee. With the exception of the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, every major party nominee has accepted the general election grant since the program's inception in 1976. Candidates themselves may not raise any other funds to be used for campaigning during the general election period.

Public grants of $18,248,300 went to each of the major parties for their conventions in 2012.

Since no third party candidate received 5% of the vote in 2008, only the Republican and Democratic parties are eligible for 2012 convention grants, and only their nominees may receive grants for the general election when they are nominated. Third-party candidates could qualify for retroactive public funds if they receive 5% or more of the vote in the general election.

The Presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of $20,000,000 plus COLA (over 1974). For 2012, the grant is approximately $91,241,400 for each major party nominee. With the exception of the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, every major party nominee has accepted the general election grant since the program's inception in 1976. Candidates themselves may not raise any other funds to be used for campaigning during the general election period.

Public grants of $18,248,300 went to each of the major parties for their conventions in 2012.

Since no third party candidate received 5% of the vote in 2008, only the Republican and Democratic parties are eligible for 2012 convention grants, and only their nominees may receive grants for the general election when they are nominated. Third-party candidates could qualify for retroactive public funds if they receive 5% or more of the vote in the general election.

Why in the FARK do Libertarians want public money? Why can't they just bootstrap their own damn convention? FARK those guys.

KellyX:Yea, just really hard to realize that from a quick glance. Shouldn't have to think about it or stare at it to understand it, also I the sexy woman that makes my penis erect might be a tad distracting

Then it reads "I LIVE FREE".. still works.

/I'd prefer "I LIVE THREE DOORS DOWN AND I'M HAVING A PARTY TONIGHT CAN YOU BRING SOME FLAN".//I can bring some flan.

The problem with this ad is that it's running on the idea that both Obama and Romney are the same when a.) there is a CLEAR distinction between the two and b.) the Libertarian platform is but a mere amalgamation of a moderate amount of social liberalism with a whole lot of extreme fiscal conservatism.

physt:Why in the FARK do Libertarians want public money? Why can't they just bootstrap their own damn convention? FARK those guys.

They need federal money so they can run a slightly larger presidential campaign next time. That will guarantee them the ability to kinda sorta spoil elections for a major party. They could devote their resources to local elections they might actually win but apparently those elections aren't as cool and might result in real work.

antidisestablishmentarianism:If a party hit's a certain percentage of the popular vote, that party is automatically included in the next election cycle and cannot be shut out of the national debates.

Wrong. It's actually a lot more cynical than that.

This has nothing to do with being in the debate. Ross Perot scored 18.9% of the vote in 1992 and 8% of the vote in 1996. But in case you didn't notice, the Reform party wasn't allowed to debate in 1996 or 2000.

This is about money. If the libertarian party scores 5% of the vote, then they get $90 million in federal funds at tax payer expense. In other words, this entire "score 5% of the vote!" campaign is based around the idea of getting a federal handout and a redistribution of wealth for people who are unable to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. From a group that usually protests this very concept on principle.

Remember, Gary Johnson raised over $2 million in campaign cash, and only spend $1000 on media buys until a week ago. The rest of the money was given to his friends he hired as "political consultants." If Gary Johnson raises $90 million, he and his friends can be expected to pocket about $80 million worth as campaign salaries.

...Also, from a graphic design perspective, it's generally not a good idea to have part of a word as an element (image) and the other part as text. It's just leads to confusion like " What the hell is "ive free"?

Yeah, most people will figure it out, but it just looks awkward. Should have just had the incredibly good looking model spell out the whole phrase in the sand.